Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dame Cicely Saunders' conceptualization of 'total pain', or 'total suffering', is one of her most significant and lasting contributions to the field of palliative care. It was Saunders' unique combination of knowledge and experiences as a trained social worker, nurse and physician that influenced her understanding of suffering specific to a life-limiting illness as being multi-dimensional: that suffering may be simultaneously physical, psychological, emotional, social, spiritual and/or existential in nature. 'Total pain' remains a highly relevant and significant concept within palliative care and Saunders' lasting contributions are to be revered. This paper invites us to reconsider one particular aspect of Saunders' conceptualization: that patients' 'mental reactions' to their anticipated dying/death is a key contributor to their 'total pain'. Drawing upon Saunders' works from the late 1950s to the early 2000s, this paper details the socio-historical manifestation of this aspect of 'total pain' within Saunders' writings, including influences from her Christian religion and Viktor Frankl, and its enduring impact on palliative care philosophy, practice, and discourse. Then, drawing upon patient stories rooted in my own clinical experiences over a 10 year period as a hospice social worker, I suggest that this particular feature of Saunders' 'total pain' may, unintentionally, work to pathologize both the patient for whom suffering persists and remains unsolvable, and the palliative care clinician who may struggle to relieve it - and why it therefore stands to be revisited. It is my sincere hope and intention that ongoing reverence for Saunders' significant contributions can sit alongside respectful reconsideration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.077 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".